Steve Sisolak, the popular Clark County Commission Chairman who serves on the Southern Nevada Tourism and Infrastructure Committee (SNTIC), has been a vocal supporter of the Oakland Raiders, Las Vegas Sands, and Majestic Realty proposal to bring the Silver and Black to Las Vegas from Oakland, by way of constructing a stadium expected to cost more than $1.4 billion. The problem is that the SNTIC has been reviewing the Raiders / Las Vegas Sands Proposal since late April and by July 31st is expected to make a recommendation that would suggest what Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval and the Nevada Legislature should do with it: except it or reject it – but Sisolak has acted as a member who failed to disclose that he received $10,000 from the same Las Vegas Sands on November 5, 2015.
Not only has Commissioner Sisolak failed to disclose this large and very recent campaign donation, he has went public and got on radio shows like ESPN Las Vegas, where he has talked about both the Raiders / Las Vegas Sands proposal, as well as the Las Vegas Convention Center Expansion. He has expressed, on more than one occasion, the need to take advantage of the opportunity that the Raiders / Las Vegas Sands Proposal offers to bring NFL Football to Sin City.
In fairness to Commissioner Sisolak, he has fairly laid out the pros and cons of the proposal, but it comes with a heavy public subsidy price tag of between $550 million and $750 million from future hotel tax revenues. Moreover, he’s not bothered to try and recuse himself from a position of decision making on the proposal. Now, Commissioner Sisolak is well-known as an incredible fundraiser, and it’s possible that he forgot that Las Vegas Sands gave him $10,000. But the fact that Sheldon Adelson’s company did (and where Adelson’s the CEO), is well documented by Vegas.com as well as by the blog Ralston Reports.
In fact, blogger Jon Ralston writes “Sisolak’s report shows the advantages and disadvantages of being a county commissioner for anyone who wants to run for higher office: The advantage is you can raise a fortune; the disadvantage is that pay-for-play charges are so easy to make in a campaign because you take so many donations.”
The best way to avoid such “ pay-for-play charges” is to disclose where a conflict of interest lay and then recuse ones self from the matter under consideration. In the case of the Raiders / Las Vegas Sands Proposal, Sisolak should have recused himself, or been asked to do so by SNTIC Chairman Steven Hill, some time ago – like when Mark Davis came to speak at the April 28th SNTIC Meeting. But not only did that not happen, Chairman Hill and the SNTIC staff did not bring up the matter for discussion in the public hearing after the Raiders / Las Vegas Sands Proposal was placed up for review.
And not only did that not happen, but there’s no evidence that the SNTIC staff bothered to check the campaign contributions of any of the elected officials that sit on the SNTIC and with respect to Las Vegas Sands. And that even though everyone and even those with half a brain know of Adelson’s love for spending his money on political campaigns and on those running for office who he believes will support his objectives.
Steve Sisolak is one of those people.
Steve Sisolak is and has been acting in a way that invites the appearance of a conflict of interest with respect to his role on the SNTIC and the Raiders / Las Vegas Sands NFL Stadium proposal. The question is will he do the right thing and recuse himself from any more involvement in the SNTIC work on this? For that matter, will the SNTIC ask him to do so? If both want to avoid the obviously nasty ramifications that will almost certainly happen if this continues, that would be a good idea.
But the other question remains outstanding: who else on the SNTIC received money from Las Vegas Sands?
Wow. Think about it. Sheldon Adelson buys the Las Vegas Review Journal, which then suddenly pumps out as much positive information about the Raiders / Las Vegas Sands Proposal as it can. And then he’s got at least one obvious SNTIC member as a paid political friend that can help his proposal. And with this, the rest of the mainstream media just carries on and cheerleads as if nothing’s wrong at all.
And all of that while Nevada itself has what some regard as the strongest conflict of interest avoidance laws in America. According to that legislation, Sisolak may have to remove himself from the Raiders / Las Vegas Sands Proposal Review, if not the SNTIC itself.
Update: Where Sisolak may find some cover is in the specifics of the law, where it reads that public officials are not required to disclose campaign contributions – and thus don’t have to recuse themselves from a board like the SNTIC. This is is in subsection 2 of the law, below.
NRS 281A.420 Requirements regarding disclosure of conflicts of interest and abstention from voting because of certain types of conflicts; effect of abstention on quorum and voting requirements; exceptions.
1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a public officer or employee shall not approve, disapprove, vote, abstain from voting or otherwise act upon a matter:
(a) Regarding which the public officer or employee has accepted a gift or loan;
(b) In which the public officer or employee has a significant pecuniary interest; or
(c) Which would reasonably be affected by the public officer’s or employee’s commitment in a private capacity to the interests of another person,
Ê without disclosing information concerning the gift or loan, significant pecuniary interest or commitment in a private capacity to the interests of the person that is sufficient to inform the public of the potential effect of the action or abstention upon the person who provided the gift or loan, upon the public officer’s or employee’s significant pecuniary interest, or upon the person to whom the public officer or employee has a commitment in a private capacity. Such a disclosure must be made at the time the matter is considered. If the public officer or employee is a member of a body which makes decisions, the public officer or employee shall make the disclosure in public to the chair and other members of the body. If the public officer or employee is not a member of such a body and holds an appointive office, the public officer or employee shall make the disclosure to the supervisory head of the public officer’s or employee’s organization or, if the public officer holds an elective office, to the general public in the area from which the public officer is elected.
2. The provisions of subsection 1 do not require a public officer to disclose:
(a) Any campaign contributions that the public officer reported in a timely manner pursuant to NRS 294A.120 or 294A.125; or
(b) Any contributions to a legal defense fund that the public officer reported in a timely manner pursuant to NRS 294A.286.
3. Except as otherwise provided in this section, in addition to the requirements of subsection 1, a public officer shall not vote upon or advocate the passage or failure of, but may otherwise participate in the consideration of, a matter with respect to which the independence of judgment of a reasonable person in the public officer’s situation would be materially affected by:
(a) The public officer’s acceptance of a gift or loan;
(b) The public officer’s significant pecuniary interest; or
(c) The public officer’s commitment in a private capacity to the interests of another person.
4. In interpreting and applying the provisions of subsection 3:
(a) It must be presumed that the independence of judgment of a reasonable person in the public officer’s situation would not be materially affected by the public officer’s acceptance of a gift or loan, significant pecuniary interest or commitment in a private capacity to the interests of another person where the resulting benefit or detriment accruing to the public officer, or if the public officer has a commitment in a private capacity to the interests of another person, accruing to the other person, is not greater than that accruing to any other member of any general business, profession, occupation or group that is affected by the matter. The presumption set forth in this paragraph does not affect the applicability of the requirements set forth in subsection 1 relating to the disclosure of the acceptance of a gift or loan, significant pecuniary interest or commitment in a private capacity to the interests of another person.
(b) The Commission must give appropriate weight and proper deference to the public policy of this State which favors the right of a public officer to perform the duties for which the public officer was elected or appointed and to vote or otherwise act upon a matter, provided the public officer has properly disclosed the public officer’s acceptance of a gift or loan, significant pecuniary interest or commitment in a private capacity to the interests of another person in the manner required by subsection 1. Because abstention by a public officer disrupts the normal course of representative government and deprives the public and the public officer’s constituents of a voice in governmental affairs, the provisions of this section are intended to require abstention only in clear cases where the independence of judgment of a reasonable person in the public officer’s situation would be materially affected by the public officer’s acceptance of a gift or loan, significant pecuniary interest or commitment in a private capacity to the interests of another person.
5. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 241.0355, if a public officer declares to the body or committee in which the vote is to be taken that the public officer will abstain from voting because of the requirements of this section, the necessary quorum to act upon and the number of votes necessary to act upon the matter, as fixed by any statute, ordinance or rule, is reduced as though the member abstaining were not a member of the body or committee.
6. The provisions of this section do not, under any circumstances:
(a) Prohibit a member of a local legislative body from requesting or introducing a legislative measure; or
(b) Require a member of a local legislative body to take any particular action before or while requesting or introducing a legislative measure.
7. The provisions of this section do not, under any circumstances, apply to State Legislators or allow the Commission to exercise jurisdiction or authority over State Legislators. The responsibility of a State Legislator to make disclosures concerning gifts, loans, interests or commitments and the responsibility of a State Legislator to abstain from voting upon or advocating the passage or failure of a matter are governed by the Standing Rules of the Legislative Department of State Government which are adopted, administered and enforced exclusively by the appropriate bodies of the Legislative Department of State Government pursuant to Section 6 of Article 4 of the Nevada Constitution.
8. As used in this section, “public officer” and “public employee” do not include a State Legislator.
Even with that, given the obvious appearance of a conflict of interest from a political perspective, Sisolak or someone with the SNTIC should have brought up the issue.
Stay tuned.